The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

[kalm]

phpBB [video]

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

.........................

[JohnStOnge]

JSO is an example of confirmation bias. He only considers information that supports his position/opinion and discounts or completely ignores any information that contradicts it. Plus he's a fvcking broken record spouting the same sh!t over and over.

Ok. I compared polling results shortly prior to elections involving Trump to actual results and showed that the actual results were very close to the polling estimates. The idea is that if it were true that there was this big bias where people don't honestly answer pollsters on Trump that would not happen. We would see a significant difference between results of polls taken shortly before the elections and the actual results.

Do you have some data that I'm not considering? If so, please provide it.

I do not read polls to confirm what I wish to believe. That is why I was on this board on the evening of November 7, 2016, posting that Hillary was not a lock to win. Posting that I was not happy with where things were. I would love to have been able to believe at that time that Hillary winning was a done deal but the polls did not support believing that. So I didn't.

When I went through the numbers last time I limited analysis to results of polls that ended no earlier than November 1, 2016. I think that's reasonable. However, one can just take the averages as Reported directly by Real Clear Politics and see the margins of poll averages and actual results for the past four Presidential Elections.

2016 Polls: Clinton by 3.3. Actual: Clinton by 2.1. Absolute value of Difference: 1.2
2012 Polls: Obama by 0.7. Actual: Obama by 3.9. Absolute value of Difference: 3.2
2008 Polls: Obama by 7.6. Actual: Obama by 7.3. Absolute value of Difference: 0.3
2004 Polls: Bush by 1.5. Actual: Bush by 2.4. Absolute value of Difference: 0.9

There is obviously nothing remarkable, in the context of other elections, with the error associated with the 2016 election. There is no evidence in the numbers at all of some unusual bias introduced by any particular cause associated with Trump. That's not confirmation bias. It's reality. It is what it is.

As far as the "broken record" goes, I responded to someone saying polls involving Trump are notoriously skewed. That is not the first time I've seen somebody say that and it's not the first time I've responded.

Anyway, when you see things like Trump being consistently underwater in the Real Clear Politics polling average on Job Approval by something like 7 through 15 points you can take it to the bank that he is substantially under water. What you're seeing is not the result of some mythical bias introduced by how people respond to polls involving Trump.

If the basic pattern changes so that he is no longer clearly under water I will not like it but I won't deny it. But it's been very steady and consistent. Unusually so. Most of the time you see Presidents go up and down. Sometimes they are underwater and sometimes they are not. Trump was close to even on inauguration day then within a month he was clearly underwater. And it's been that way ever since.

[kalm]

JSO is an example of confirmation bias. He only considers information that supports his position/opinion and discounts or completely ignores any information that contradicts it. Plus he's a fvcking broken record spouting the same sh!t over and over.

Ok. I compared polling results shortly prior to elections involving Trump to actual results and showed that the actual results were very close to the polling estimates. The idea is that if it were true that there was this big bias where people don't honestly answer pollsters on Trump that would not happen. We would see a significant difference between results of polls taken shortly before the elections and the actual results.

Do you have some data that I'm not considering? If so, please provide it.

I do not read polls to confirm what I wish to believe. That is why I was on this board on the evening of November 7, 2016, posting that Hillary was not a lock to win. Posting that I was not happy with where things were. I would love to have been able to believe at that time that Hillary winning was a done deal but the polls did not support believing that. So I didn't.

When I went through the numbers last time I limited analysis to results of polls that ended no earlier than November 1, 2016. I think that's reasonable. However, one can just take the averages as Reported directly by Real Clear Politics and see the margins of poll averages and actual results for the past four Presidential Elections.

2016 Polls: Clinton by 3.3. Actual: Clinton by 2.1. Absolute value of Difference: 1.2
2012 Polls: Obama by 0.7. Actual: Obama by 3.9. Absolute value of Difference: 3.2
2008 Polls: Obama by 7.6. Actual: Obama by 7.3. Absolute value of Difference: 0.3
2004 Polls: Bush by 1.5. Actual: Bush by 2.4. Absolute value of Difference: 0.9

There is obviously nothing remarkable, in the context of other elections, with the error associated with the 2016 election. There is no evidence in the numbers at all of some unusual bias introduced by any particular cause associated with Trump. That's not confirmation bias. It's reality. It is what it is.

As far as the "broken record" goes, I responded to someone saying polls involving Trump are notoriously skewed. That is not the first time I've seen somebody say that and it's not the first time I've responded.

Anyway, when you see things like Trump being consistently underwater in the Real Clear Politics polling average on Job Approval by something like 7 through 15 points you can take it to the bank that he is substantially under water. What you're seeing is not the result of some mythical bias introduced by how people respond to polls involving Trump.

If the basic pattern changes so that he is no longer clearly under water I will not like it but I won't deny it. But it's been very steady and consistent. Unusually so. Most of the time you see Presidents go up and down. Sometimes they are underwater and sometimes they are not. Trump was close to even on inauguration day then within a month he was clearly underwater. And it's been that way ever since.

[UNI88]

JSO is an example of confirmation bias. He only considers information that supports his position/opinion and discounts or completely ignores any information that contradicts it. Plus he's a fvcking broken record spouting the same sh!t over and over.

Ok. I compared polling results shortly prior to elections involving Trump to actual results and showed that the actual results were very close to the polling estimates. The idea is that if it were true that there was this big bias where people don't honestly answer pollsters on Trump that would not happen. We would see a significant difference between results of polls taken shortly before the elections and the actual results.

Do you have some data that I'm not considering? If so, please provide it.

I do not read polls to confirm what I wish to believe. That is why I was on this board on the evening of November 7, 2016, posting that Hillary was not a lock to win. Posting that I was not happy with where things were. I would love to have been able to believe at that time that Hillary winning was a done deal but the polls did not support believing that. So I didn't.

When I went through the numbers last time I limited analysis to results of polls that ended no earlier than November 1, 2016. I think that's reasonable. However, one can just take the averages as Reported directly by Real Clear Politics and see the margins of poll averages and actual results for the past four Presidential Elections.

2016 Polls: Clinton by 3.3. Actual: Clinton by 2.1. Absolute value of Difference: 1.2
2012 Polls: Obama by 0.7. Actual: Obama by 3.9. Absolute value of Difference: 3.2
2008 Polls: Obama by 7.6. Actual: Obama by 7.3. Absolute value of Difference: 0.3
2004 Polls: Bush by 1.5. Actual: Bush by 2.4. Absolute value of Difference: 0.9

There is obviously nothing remarkable, in the context of other elections, with the error associated with the 2016 election. There is no evidence in the numbers at all of some unusual bias introduced by any particular cause associated with Trump. That's not confirmation bias. It's reality. It is what it is.

As far as the "broken record" goes, I responded to someone saying polls involving Trump are notoriously skewed. That is not the first time I've seen somebody say that and it's not the first time I've responded.

Anyway, when you see things like Trump being consistently underwater in the Real Clear Politics polling average on Job Approval by something like 7 through 15 points you can take it to the bank that he is substantially under water. What you're seeing is not the result of some mythical bias introduced by how people respond to polls involving Trump.

If the basic pattern changes so that he is no longer clearly under water I will not like it but I won't deny it. But it's been very steady and consistent. Unusually so. Most of the time you see Presidents go up and down. Sometimes they are underwater and sometimes they are not. Trump was close to even on inauguration day then within a month he was clearly underwater. And it's been that way ever since.

I was commenting on your posts in general not just the ones about polls. For example, you've been given examples of Trump's positive accomplishments and completely ignored them. AZ has explained why Trump keeping the economy going has been unusual and a positive accomplishment and you've ignored or discounted his arguments. AZ has forgotten more about economics then you've ever known. You arguing with him about economics is similar to me reading Wikipedia and arguing with you about Louisiana water flow. You are a smart guy but you have a serious bias against Trump that prevents you from accurately considering information. I know that Trump is a blustering buffoon but he isn't Satan or the end of the republic.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

I’m making America great again, one wee dram at a time..

Right now, I’m making America great again with a double Lagavulin at the Peninsula on the Chao Phraya river in Bangkok

with a Partagas #2




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

I’m making America great again, one wee dram at a time..

Right now, I’m making America great again with a double Lagavulin at the Peninsula on the Chao Phraya river in Bangkok

with a Partagas #2




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you wearing Matlock's pants?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

I’m making America great again, one wee dram at a time..

Right now, I’m making America great again with a double Lagavulin at the Peninsula on the Chao Phraya river in Bangkok

with a Partagas #2




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you wearing Matlock's pants?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

It’s called seersucker, you unwashed midwestern hick









LAWL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Ok. I compared polling results shortly prior to elections involving Trump to actual results and showed that the actual results were very close to the polling estimates. The idea is that if it were true that there was this big bias where people don't honestly answer pollsters on Trump that would not happen. We would see a significant difference between results of polls taken shortly before the elections and the actual results.

Do you have some data that I'm not considering? If so, please provide it.

I do not read polls to confirm what I wish to believe. That is why I was on this board on the evening of November 7, 2016, posting that Hillary was not a lock to win. Posting that I was not happy with where things were. I would love to have been able to believe at that time that Hillary winning was a done deal but the polls did not support believing that. So I didn't.

When I went through the numbers last time I limited analysis to results of polls that ended no earlier than November 1, 2016. I think that's reasonable. However, one can just take the averages as Reported directly by Real Clear Politics and see the margins of poll averages and actual results for the past four Presidential Elections.

2016 Polls: Clinton by 3.3. Actual: Clinton by 2.1. Absolute value of Difference: 1.2
2012 Polls: Obama by 0.7. Actual: Obama by 3.9. Absolute value of Difference: 3.2
2008 Polls: Obama by 7.6. Actual: Obama by 7.3. Absolute value of Difference: 0.3
2004 Polls: Bush by 1.5. Actual: Bush by 2.4. Absolute value of Difference: 0.9

There is obviously nothing remarkable, in the context of other elections, with the error associated with the 2016 election. There is no evidence in the numbers at all of some unusual bias introduced by any particular cause associated with Trump. That's not confirmation bias. It's reality. It is what it is.

As far as the "broken record" goes, I responded to someone saying polls involving Trump are notoriously skewed. That is not the first time I've seen somebody say that and it's not the first time I've responded.

Anyway, when you see things like Trump being consistently underwater in the Real Clear Politics polling average on Job Approval by something like 7 through 15 points you can take it to the bank that he is substantially under water. What you're seeing is not the result of some mythical bias introduced by how people respond to polls involving Trump.

If the basic pattern changes so that he is no longer clearly under water I will not like it but I won't deny it. But it's been very steady and consistent. Unusually so. Most of the time you see Presidents go up and down. Sometimes they are underwater and sometimes they are not. Trump was close to even on inauguration day then within a month he was clearly underwater. And it's been that way ever since.

I was commenting on your posts in general not just the ones about polls. For example, you've been given examples of Trump's positive accomplishments and completely ignored them. AZ has explained why Trump keeping the economy going has been unusual and a positive accomplishment and you've ignored or discounted his arguments. AZ has forgotten more about economics then you've ever known. You arguing with him about economics is similar to me reading Wikipedia and arguing with you about Louisiana water flow. You are a smart guy but you have a serious bias against Trump that prevents you from accurately considering information. I know that Trump is a blustering buffoon but he isn't Satan or the end of the republic.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

“Experts” are often extremely over-rated. I’m sure Z is damn good at running a CU but I've seen his posts on macro economics...

[UNI88]

I was commenting on your posts in general not just the ones about polls. For example, you've been given examples of Trump's positive accomplishments and completely ignored them. AZ has explained why Trump keeping the economy going has been unusual and a positive accomplishment and you've ignored or discounted his arguments. AZ has forgotten more about economics then you've ever known. You arguing with him about economics is similar to me reading Wikipedia and arguing with you about Louisiana water flow. You are a smart guy but you have a serious bias against Trump that prevents you from accurately considering information. I know that Trump is a blustering buffoon but he isn't Satan or the end of the republic.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

“Experts” are often extremely over-rated. I’m sure Z is damn good at running a CU but I've seen his posts on macro economics...

In that instance Z was right and John completely ignored his arguments. It's intellectually lazy to assume something like it is/was easy for Trump to continue the economic boom that Obama started when history shows that sustained booms are unusual and the Fed actions that Z pointed out did make it much harder to sustain. One could also argue that starting the boom wasn't just easy, it was inevitable (if you're at the bottom you have nowhere to go but up) and Obama's actions had little to nothing to do with it (the "shovel-ready" projects thing was a joke).

This is just one example of John ignoring arguments/information that don't fit his narrative. CID and others have schooled him and he's been oblivious. I'm not going to look them up but they're out there.

John is a smart guy and he used to be very rational but his hatred blinds him when it comes to Trump.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

JSO is an example of confirmation bias. He only considers information that supports his position/opinion and discounts or completely ignores any information that contradicts it. Plus he's a fvcking broken record spouting the same sh!t over and over.

Ok. I compared polling results shortly prior to elections involving Trump to actual results and showed that the actual results were very close to the polling estimates. The idea is that if it were true that there was this big bias where people don't honestly answer pollsters on Trump that would not happen. We would see a significant difference between results of polls taken shortly before the elections and the actual results.

Do you have some data that I'm not considering? If so, please provide it.

I do not read polls to confirm what I wish to believe. That is why I was on this board on the evening of November 7, 2016, posting that Hillary was not a lock to win. Posting that I was not happy with where things were. I would love to have been able to believe at that time that Hillary winning was a done deal but the polls did not support believing that. So I didn't.

When I went through the numbers last time I limited analysis to results of polls that ended no earlier than November 1, 2016. I think that's reasonable. However, one can just take the averages as Reported directly by Real Clear Politics and see the margins of poll averages and actual results for the past four Presidential Elections.

2016 Polls: Clinton by 3.3. Actual: Clinton by 2.1. Absolute value of Difference: 1.2
2012 Polls: Obama by 0.7. Actual: Obama by 3.9. Absolute value of Difference: 3.2
2008 Polls: Obama by 7.6. Actual: Obama by 7.3. Absolute value of Difference: 0.3
2004 Polls: Bush by 1.5. Actual: Bush by 2.4. Absolute value of Difference: 0.9

There is obviously nothing remarkable, in the context of other elections, with the error associated with the 2016 election. There is no evidence in the numbers at all of some unusual bias introduced by any particular cause associated with Trump. That's not confirmation bias. It's reality. It is what it is.

As far as the "broken record" goes, I responded to someone saying polls involving Trump are notoriously skewed. That is not the first time I've seen somebody say that and it's not the first time I've responded.

Anyway, when you see things like Trump being consistently underwater in the Real Clear Politics polling average on Job Approval by something like 7 through 15 points you can take it to the bank that he is substantially under water. What you're seeing is not the result of some mythical bias introduced by how people respond to polls involving Trump.

If the basic pattern changes so that he is no longer clearly under water I will not like it but I won't deny it. But it's been very steady and consistent. Unusually so. Most of the time you see Presidents go up and down. Sometimes they are underwater and sometimes they are not. Trump was close to even on inauguration day then within a month he was clearly underwater. And it's been that way ever since.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Ha Ha Ha no kidding!

JSO has had the exact same post for going on 3 years. I haven't read one of them in about that long either.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

Are you wearing Matlock's pants?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

It’s called seersucker, you unwashed midwestern hick

LAWL

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

I was commenting on your posts in general not just the ones about polls. For example, you've been given examples of Trump's positive accomplishments and completely ignored them. AZ has explained why Trump keeping the economy going has been unusual and a positive accomplishment and you've ignored or discounted his arguments. AZ has forgotten more about economics then you've ever known. You arguing with him about economics is similar to me reading Wikipedia and arguing with you about Louisiana water flow. You are a smart guy but you have a serious bias against Trump that prevents you from accurately considering information. I know that Trump is a blustering buffoon but he isn't Satan or the end of the republic.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

“Experts” are often extremely over-rated. I’m sure Z is damn good at running a CU but I've seen his posts on macro economics...

[kalm]

“Experts” are often extremely over-rated. I’m sure Z is damn good at running a CU but I've seen his posts on macro economics...

I love ya, Z!

[AZGrizFan]

[houndawg]

“Experts” are often extremely over-rated. I’m sure Z is damn good at running a CU but I've seen his posts on macro economics...

In that instance Z was right and John completely ignored his arguments. It's intellectually lazy to assume something like it is/was easy for Trump to continue the economic boom that Obama started when history shows that sustained booms are unusual and the Fed actions that Z pointed out did make it much harder to sustain. One could also argue that starting the boom wasn't just easy, it was inevitable (if you're at the bottom you have nowhere to go but up) and Obama's actions had little to nothing to do with it (the "shovel-ready" projects thing was a joke).

This is just one example of John ignoring arguments/information that don't fit his narrative. CID and others have schooled him and he's been oblivious. I'm not going to look them up but they're out there.

John is a smart guy and he used to be very rational but his hatred blinds him when it comes to Trump.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Its almost as if Trump were Hillary.

[BDKJMU]

'Legally unchallengeable': ICE to deputize police in sanctuary cities to detain illegals
https://washingtontimes.com/news/2019/m ... -illegals/

[SDHornet]

'Legally unchallengeable': ICE to deputize police in sanctuary cities to detain illegals
https://washingtontimes.com/news/2019/m ... -illegals/

Brilliant move.

[JohnStOnge]

I was commenting on your posts in general not just the ones about polls. For example, you've been given examples of Trump's positive accomplishments and completely ignored them. AZ has explained why Trump keeping the economy going has been unusual and a positive accomplishment and you've ignored or discounted his arguments. AZ has forgotten more about economics then you've ever known. You arguing with him about economics is similar to me reading Wikipedia and arguing with you about Louisiana water flow. You are a smart guy but you have a serious bias against Trump that prevents you from accurately considering information. I know that Trump is a blustering buffoon but he isn't Satan or the end of the republic.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I have not ignored AZ's examples. He has not cited anything I was not already aware of. Not that I recall anyway. And my position is not based on confirmation bias. I am a person who believes, correctly I think, that statistics is a field that transcends any particular discipline. Rules for concluding that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there are associations or effects do not change. They apply whether the realm of discussion is social science or microbiology. They apply whether is is economics or environmental science.

I simply look at the data in the same way that I would look at any data to see if it looks like there is evidence that something changed in the direction of each economic indicator of interest in association with Trump getting elected and or taking office. I see a change in the stock market trend from generally positive to a little more positive around the beginning of 2016. Obviously that's not associated with Trump. I see another possible change around the end of 2017 so maybe something there. But things pretty much flattened out after that. Up and down variation but basically flat.

With respect to GDP I see a change in variation in quarterly GDP possibly associated with Trump but there is no apparent change in the general level and variation in annual GDP. And I've noted things like the fact that a 3.2 percent quarterly growth rate for a 1st quarter is not unusual.

I see that there hasn't been a change in the general level and month to month variation in job creation since around 2009 or 2010. It just is what it is.

As far as I can tell AZ's position is that it would be better if the Fed had not been raising interest rates. But the conclusion that it's not a situation where the economy was "bad," Trump took office, and now it's "good" is a very reasonable one supported by the data. I can't know what would have happened if the Fed had acted somewhat differently and neither can AZ. I've tried reading stuff on why the Fed thinks it has to raise interest rates (even though what we're talking about are still very low rates in historical terms). One example is at https://www.marketwatch.com/story/3-rea ... 2018-12-27.

For all we know the Fed could be saving Trump's bacon with what they're doing. Preventing problems he would be held accountable for. Don't know that. But it's certainly possible.

All I can say is that there just isn't any evidence in the data of a dramatic change associated with Trump taking office. Can I say that there aren't some confounding factors? Can I say I know that there would not have been a downturn otherwise? No. All I can say is that, historically, it's not a situation in which the economy was "bad," Trump took office, and now it's "good." It's about the same as it was in terms of the measurables people typically point to as indicators of how things are going. Well, it's not the "same" in terms of the unemployment rate. That is a little lower. But in that case there was a trend where it declined from about 10% to 4.7% before Trump took office then continued to decline by about another percentage point afterwards. So, again, no indication of a change in the way things were going associted with Trump getting elected or taking office.

[JohnStOnge]

I had time on my hands yesterday and I like playing with numbers so I took a more detailed look at State-by-State 2016 Presidential election polls as well as national polls. I looked only at polls such that questioning ended from November 1, 2016, on. I used all of them unless some were repeats. For example: There was an Opinion Savvy poll conducted November 1 – 2 in Florida. I did not include it because there was another opinion Savvy poll, which I did include, conducted in Florida during November 5-6.

There are 79 results of such polls of State-by-State voters. The poll estimates understate the percent support Clinton had, on average, by 2.1 percentage points. They understate Trump support by, on average, 3.5 percentage points. The difference is significant at above the 95% confidence level.

The State polls overstated the Clinton – Trump margin, on average, by 1.5 percentage points. The average error is significantly different from 0 above the 95% confidence level (0 means no statistical bias). The range of error is from under estimating Clinton’s performance with respect to the margin in a State by 8.4 percentage points to under estimating Trump’s performance in that regard by 12.5 percentage points.

National results are similar. 13 polls met the criteria. They underestimated Clinton’s national vote percentage, on average, by 2.4 percentage points and underestimated Trump’s, on average, by 3.9 percentage points. The difference is not significant at 95% confidence because that would require p < 0.05 and p = 0.14. The relatively small sample size is probably a factor in that.

The polls overstated the Clinton – Trump national margin, on average, by 1.2 percentage points. The average error is significantly different from 0 above the 95% confidence level. The range of error is from under estimating Clinton’s performance by 4.1 percentage points to under estimating Trump’s performance by 3.9 percentage points.

The bottom line is that there was a bias towards Clinton, but it was small. The polls did not under estimate Clinton’s percentages as much as they did Trump’s and therefore over estimated the Clinton – Trump margins. But not by much. You’re talking about something like 1 to 2 percentage points when averaging polls. It’s not nearly enough to account for things like Trump being 7.2 percentage points down in the Real Clear Politics Job Approval/Disapproval average or 7.3 percentage points down in the Real Clear Politics average for a theoretical Trump vs. Biden matchup.

Of course things can and do change. Trump could move into being above water in Job Approval and he could move to being ahead of Biden in the potential popular vote. But right now he’s not in either of those places.

I think he has had some positive movement lately, and I am not happy about that. But he's still in a situation whereby most people don't want him as President and just about any candidate the Democrats end up with will have a reasonable shot to win. Let's just hope the next inevitable downturn in the economy is timed so as to increase the likelihood.

[UNI88]

I was commenting on your posts in general not just the ones about polls. For example, you've been given examples of Trump's positive accomplishments and completely ignored them. AZ has explained why Trump keeping the economy going has been unusual and a positive accomplishment and you've ignored or discounted his arguments. AZ has forgotten more about economics then you've ever known. You arguing with him about economics is similar to me reading Wikipedia and arguing with you about Louisiana water flow. You are a smart guy but you have a serious bias against Trump that prevents you from accurately considering information. I know that Trump is a blustering buffoon but he isn't Satan or the end of the republic.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I have not ignored AZ's examples. He has not cited anything I was not already aware of. Not that I recall anyway. And my position is not based on confirmation bias. I am a person who believes, correctly I think, that statistics is a field that transcends any particular discipline. Rules for concluding that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there are associations or effects do not change. They apply whether the realm of discussion is social science or microbiology. They apply whether is is economics or environmental science.

I simply look at the data in the same way that I would look at any data to see if it looks like there is evidence that something changed in the direction of each economic indicator of interest in association with Trump getting elected and or taking office. I see a change in the stock market trend from generally positive to a little more positive around the beginning of 2016. Obviously that's not associated with Trump. I see another possible change around the end of 2017 so maybe something there. But things pretty much flattened out after that. Up and down variation but basically flat.

With respect to GDP I see a change in variation in quarterly GDP possibly associated with Trump but there is no apparent change in the general level and variation in annual GDP. And I've noted things like the fact that a 3.2 percent quarterly growth rate for a 1st quarter is not unusual.

I see that there hasn't been a change in the general level and month to month variation in job creation since around 2009 or 2010. It just is what it is.

As far as I can tell AZ's position is that it would be better if the Fed had not been raising interest rates. But the conclusion that it's not a situation where the economy was "bad," Trump took office, and now it's "good" is a very reasonable one supported by the data. I can't know what would have happened if the Fed had acted somewhat differently and neither can AZ. I've tried reading stuff on why the Fed thinks it has to raise interest rates (even though what we're talking about are still very low rates in historical terms). One example is at https://www.marketwatch.com/story/3-rea ... 2018-12-27.

For all we know the Fed could be saving Trump's bacon with what they're doing. Preventing problems he would be held accountable for. Don't know that. But it's certainly possible.

All I can say is that there just isn't any evidence in the data of a dramatic change associated with Trump taking office. Can I say that there aren't some confounding factors? Can I say I know that there would not have been a downturn otherwise? No. All I can say is that, historically, it's not a situation in which the economy was "bad," Trump took office, and now it's "good." It's about the same as it was in terms of the measurables people typically point to as indicators of how things are going. Well, it's not the "same" in terms of the unemployment rate. That is a little lower. But in that case there was a trend where it declined from about 10% to 4.7% before Trump took office then continued to decline by about another percentage point afterwards. So, again, no indication of a change in the way things were going associted with Trump getting elected or taking office.

I disagree. You're either biased or dense/oblivious. This post is a great example. I never argued (and I don't believe AZ did either) that there was a "dramatic change associated with Trump taking office." My argument was that the accomplishment was keeping the good economy humming over the last 2 1/4 years. I also don't know if AZ was arguing against the Fed's actions, he was just stating that their actions made it more difficult for the economy to keep humming along. AZ knows a heck of a lot more about the impacts of Fed actions then you and you discounting his knowledge would be like me discounting your knowledge about Louisiana water tables or similar because I read an article about them. You might not be intentionally biased but your hatred for Trump impacts how you interpret, analyze and respond to posts about Trump.

[AZGrizFan]

I was commenting on your posts in general not just the ones about polls. For example, you've been given examples of Trump's positive accomplishments and completely ignored them. AZ has explained why Trump keeping the economy going has been unusual and a positive accomplishment and you've ignored or discounted his arguments. AZ has forgotten more about economics then you've ever known. You arguing with him about economics is similar to me reading Wikipedia and arguing with you about Louisiana water flow. You are a smart guy but you have a serious bias against Trump that prevents you from accurately considering information. I know that Trump is a blustering buffoon but he isn't Satan or the end of the republic.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I have not ignored AZ's examples. He has not cited anything I was not already aware of. Not that I recall anyway. And my position is not based on confirmation bias. I am a person who believes, correctly I think, that statistics is a field that transcends any particular discipline. Rules for concluding that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there are associations or effects do not change. They apply whether the realm of discussion is social science or microbiology. They apply whether is is economics or environmental science.

I simply look at the data in the same way that I would look at any data to see if it looks like there is evidence that something changed in the direction of each economic indicator of interest in association with Trump getting elected and or taking office. I see a change in the stock market trend from generally positive to a little more positive around the beginning of 2016. Obviously that's not associated with Trump. I see another possible change around the end of 2017 so maybe something there. But things pretty much flattened out after that. Up and down variation but basically flat.

With respect to GDP I see a change in variation in quarterly GDP possibly associated with Trump but there is no apparent change in the general level and variation in annual GDP. And I've noted things like the fact that a 3.2 percent quarterly growth rate for a 1st quarter is not unusual.

I see that there hasn't been a change in the general level and month to month variation in job creation since around 2009 or 2010. It just is what it is.

As far as I can tell AZ's position is that it would be better if the Fed had not been raising interest rates. But the conclusion that it's not a situation where the economy was "bad," Trump took office, and now it's "good" is a very reasonable one supported by the data. I can't know what would have happened if the Fed had acted somewhat differently and neither can AZ. I've tried reading stuff on why the Fed thinks it has to raise interest rates (even though what we're talking about are still very low rates in historical terms). One example is at https://www.marketwatch.com/story/3-rea ... 2018-12-27.

For all we know the Fed could be saving Trump's bacon with what they're doing. Preventing problems he would be held accountable for. Don't know that. But it's certainly possible.

All I can say is that there just isn't any evidence in the data of a dramatic change associated with Trump taking office. Can I say that there aren't some confounding factors? Can I say I know that there would not have been a downturn otherwise? No. All I can say is that, historically, it's not a situation in which the economy was "bad," Trump took office, and now it's "good." It's about the same as it was in terms of the measurables people typically point to as indicators of how things are going. Well, it's not the "same" in terms of the unemployment rate. That is a little lower. But in that case there was a trend where it declined from about 10% to 4.7% before Trump took office then continued to decline by about another percentage point afterwards. So, again, no indication of a change in the way things were going associted with Trump getting elected or taking office.

You see...you see....you see....and yet you refuse to “see” the vast differences in what was happening during Obama’s presidency and Trump’s. You act as if these decisions/results are achieved in some kind of economic vacuum where nothing changes and conditions remain constant. It’s like you took one macroeconomics class and think that’s really how the world’s economy works.

To say they’re anything near equal proves that you don’t look at STATISTICS. You look at graphs. You’re an economic simpleton, plain and simple.

[kalm]

I have not ignored AZ's examples. He has not cited anything I was not already aware of. Not that I recall anyway. And my position is not based on confirmation bias. I am a person who believes, correctly I think, that statistics is a field that transcends any particular discipline. Rules for concluding that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there are associations or effects do not change. They apply whether the realm of discussion is social science or microbiology. They apply whether is is economics or environmental science.

I simply look at the data in the same way that I would look at any data to see if it looks like there is evidence that something changed in the direction of each economic indicator of interest in association with Trump getting elected and or taking office. I see a change in the stock market trend from generally positive to a little more positive around the beginning of 2016. Obviously that's not associated with Trump. I see another possible change around the end of 2017 so maybe something there. But things pretty much flattened out after that. Up and down variation but basically flat.

With respect to GDP I see a change in variation in quarterly GDP possibly associated with Trump but there is no apparent change in the general level and variation in annual GDP. And I've noted things like the fact that a 3.2 percent quarterly growth rate for a 1st quarter is not unusual.

I see that there hasn't been a change in the general level and month to month variation in job creation since around 2009 or 2010. It just is what it is.

As far as I can tell AZ's position is that it would be better if the Fed had not been raising interest rates. But the conclusion that it's not a situation where the economy was "bad," Trump took office, and now it's "good" is a very reasonable one supported by the data. I can't know what would have happened if the Fed had acted somewhat differently and neither can AZ. I've tried reading stuff on why the Fed thinks it has to raise interest rates (even though what we're talking about are still very low rates in historical terms). One example is at https://www.marketwatch.com/story/3-rea ... 2018-12-27.

For all we know the Fed could be saving Trump's bacon with what they're doing. Preventing problems he would be held accountable for. Don't know that. But it's certainly possible.

All I can say is that there just isn't any evidence in the data of a dramatic change associated with Trump taking office. Can I say that there aren't some confounding factors? Can I say I know that there would not have been a downturn otherwise? No. All I can say is that, historically, it's not a situation in which the economy was "bad," Trump took office, and now it's "good." It's about the same as it was in terms of the measurables people typically point to as indicators of how things are going. Well, it's not the "same" in terms of the unemployment rate. That is a little lower. But in that case there was a trend where it declined from about 10% to 4.7% before Trump took office then continued to decline by about another percentage point afterwards. So, again, no indication of a change in the way things were going associted with Trump getting elected or taking office.

You see...you see....you see....and yet you refuse to “see” the vast differences in what was happening during Obama’s presidency and Trump’s. You act as if these decisions/results are achieved in some kind of economic vacuum where nothing changes and conditions remain constant. It’s like you took one macroeconomics class and think that’s really how the world’s economy works.

To say they’re anything near equal proves that you don’t look at STATISTICS. You look at graphs. You’re an economic simpleton, plain and simple.

Many of the world’s “greatest” economists look at it through a clouded lens of ideology and confirmation bias. Couched in your own language/description/performance Stephen Moore and Alan Greenspan are economic simpletons.

[SeattleGriz]

You see...you see....you see....and yet you refuse to “see” the vast differences in what was happening during Obama’s presidency and Trump’s. You act as if these decisions/results are achieved in some kind of economic vacuum where nothing changes and conditions remain constant. It’s like you took one macroeconomics class and think that’s really how the world’s economy works.

To say they’re anything near equal proves that you don’t look at STATISTICS. You look at graphs. You’re an economic simpleton, plain and simple.

Many of the world’s “greatest” economists look at it through a clouded lens of ideology and confirmation bias. Couched in your own language/description/performance Stephen Moore and Alan Greenspan are economic simpletons.

Don't forget Krugman. Weren't we all supposed to be dead by now?

[AZGrizFan]

You see...you see....you see....and yet you refuse to “see” the vast differences in what was happening during Obama’s presidency and Trump’s. You act as if these decisions/results are achieved in some kind of economic vacuum where nothing changes and conditions remain constant. It’s like you took one macroeconomics class and think that’s really how the world’s economy works.

To say they’re anything near equal proves that you don’t look at STATISTICS. You look at graphs. You’re an economic simpleton, plain and simple.

Many of the world’s “greatest” economists look at it through a clouded lens of ideology and confirmation bias. Couched in your own language/description/performance Stephen Moore and Alan Greenspan are economic simpletons.

Probably true.